Sounds like a pretty tragic and and sad situation. BBC News - Bears, tigers, lions and wolves escape from Ohio zoo
So sad and so preventable. It's only responsible to have a contingency plan in case something happens to you; someone to look after the animals when you're gone.
It seems like the owner did it all himself. Even if the laws were changed, how could they be changed to prevent this from happening again? This same incident could easily happen in a public zoo.
I have been waiting all day to unleash the fury on this story,I am totally disgusted and apalled by it on many levels.I also would like to apologize upfront to anyone whom I might offend as I am not holding anything back here. Southern Ohio other than the Columbus and Cincinnatti metro areas is full of nothing but a bunch of redneck inbred gun toating hillbillies,afterall these are the same people who are responsible for putting that ***** George W Bush back into the White House for a second term.I am sure too that there are plenty of other places in the US where these dispicable roadside zoos exist.If this isn't reason enough to erradicate these form our backyards then I don't what is. Now to how this whole mess was handled.The Columbus Zoo is my favorite zoo out the dozens that I visit on a regular basis and the fact that Jack Hanna both condones and is directly involved in this horrific slaughter makes me wanna puke.There is no one that can convince that there was not another way to handle this.Sorry this is just how I feel there was a better way and I cannot say it enough. Again I want to say that I realize this is a bit harsh but its how I feel.ZooChat is a social media tool for those who love animals and zoos and I wanted to express my feelings on something that really struck a nerve.I am a animal person and Jungle Jack you are nothing but a poacher and I've lost all respect for you. I wanna encouarage all of who strongly oppose roadside zoos and the holding of dangerous exotic animals as pets to write your local congressman or state representive. Marty of Team Tapir
This owner had a previous record of animal abuse and the laws need to be changed so that a Pyscopath like this does not have wild dangerous animals in his care. Team Tapir
Well put, Team Tapir. My heart sunk when I saw that lion. Something needs to be done to make sure all animals, not just exotic, are hell of a lot more harder to obtain than they are. The fact that anyone can order any animal online or get one just by walking into a store and putting money down on a counter, disturbs me greatly. This is happening right in my backyard, in my province. I'll be doing some letter writing.
I'm gonna meet you half way here and agree in part. I don't want to see a ban on people keeping these species privately, but I want there to be much tighter laws on the issue, with strict checks on the people applying for DWA and the enclosures the animals will be kept in. They should also be able to show that they have back up plans if anything goes wrong, fully enclosed sites (so if animals get loose of the enclosure they do not get off the grounds), and a procedure to be followed if anything does go wrong. People wanting to keep these species really should legally need an extra two people who can take over the facility in a circumstance like this.
Law enforcement acted appropriately in that situation. When there is only 1.5 hours of daylight left, law enforcement needed to make a split decision, a tragic decision, but one that was needed to prevent anyone from getting hurt. The fact that Jack Hanna and other Columbus Zoo personal were on hand, only makes me respect him and the Institution even more. The truth is, more laws are needed to restrict individuals from obtaining such wild animals. These animals belong in zoos, wildlife parks, and most importantly, in the wild. Privately holding lions and tigers and bears in substandard living conditions are not fair to the animals and often lead to terrible incidents.
I was being serious about having a solid debate on how laws could be changed. If you would like to quote me, then please give me a reasonable, solid answer. And if you are serious, then are you indicating that anyone working with animals submit results from some kind of psychiatric test? Because when it comes down to it - all animals can/will be dangerous.
This is very true. You would be desperate to find any animal escape protocol in a zoo that does not have a "shoot to kill" cause in certain situations.
Here's an article on Ohio's lax culture of handling exotic animals: Animal welfare group gives Ohio low score in dealing with wildlife - latimes.com I don't see how this incident could happen at a zoo (i.e., a crazy guy releasing all the really dangerous animals). Ohio seems to have a culture of really good zoos; why is there a disconnect with regulation of the same kind of animals by private individuals?
May I attempt to be a voice of reason here (as a couple others have)? The owner (who killed himself after intentionally releasing the animals) was obviously disturbed. There will always be people with problems in society. But this does NOT warrant banning a certain activity from everyone. Prohibiting private ownership and breeding of animals is NOT the answer. Responsible persons should not be punished for the irrational acts of a few. Should cars be outlawed because some people are perpetual bad drivers? Although I am not an animal owner myself, I am a member of the Feline Conservation Federation, which supports and promotes responsible private husbandry of exotic felines (wild cats). They were aware of this facility and at least one FCF member had visited and offered to place the mistreated animals in a better home. The owner would not listen. The FCF had also contacted Ohio authorities about the substandard conditions, but they did nothing. Also, according to an FCF email, there actually was legislation introduced last year to improve Ohio's animal laws. However, they were presumably not strict enough for the liking of the Humane Society which forced the legislation off the table (I would assume in order to introduce stricter laws). The result is that nothing was passed yet so ironically the reason the animal laws are so lax is partly because of the Humane Society's lobbying. (Obviously not their intent, but that is the result). @ Team Tapir - I am pretty sure people in states other than Ohio voted for George W
Well, I really hate to get into something as controversial as this, but I just can't resist. Arizona Docent makes a great point, that this shouldn't be banned just because of some irresponsible individual. Normally, I would agree with Team Tapir as he seems like a level-headed individual. However this is a completey overly-emotional response. This is a very offensive way to stereotype people from a region, and I would even be offended if you said this about people from the deep South or Texas. Just because someone is a "redneck" does not make them inbred, as this is a stereotype. Both hillbilly and redneck are considered derogatory terms similar to cracker and white trash, I would appreciate if you wouldn't use the offensive terms. And, if I want to be specific hillbilly refers to people of the Ozark or Appalachian Mountains, which aren't in Ohio. And a cheap shot at Bush doesn't make your argument more convincing. He wasn't very good, but calling him a ***** is disrespectful for someone in that office. When animals this deadly are involved, there isn't a better way. What is you had family in Zanesville? Then would you approve of this? NAIB Volunteer put it best - This is the only part of your post I agree with, as zoos like this are a great stain on our country. It is cruelty to animals, and creates a hatred of zoos in many people. I hate being this critical of a member I respect so much, but this response was saturated with emotion, and insults against certain groups of people. I hope you think about this in the future.
AZ Docent, I'm not sure that anyone is advocating the banning of ownership and breeding of exotic animals...I'm not anyway. I do think that it needs to be extremely highly regulated. These animals can be deadly weapons in the wrong hands, which they clearly were in this case (deadly weapons, and in the wrong hands). If there is not some carefully monitored regulatory system in place like there is for drivers, then I would actually argue that private ownership of animals like big cats and bears should be outlawed. California has very strict regulations on owning animals like this but there are still several people who own the species and breed them without a ban.
You bring up a very good point KC, and in my post I didn't mean to stereotype people or offend anyone and apologies if I did, but there is inarguably a culture of deep and pervasive anti-regulatory and anti-government sentiment that you find dominant in some parts of the country (e.g. Texas, South Carolina) and not others. This is what I was trying to get at.
Yes, your post wasn't nearly as offensive as the one I quoted. However, the South is fairly right-wing, who are against big government, so you are correct. Now lets see how many enemies I can make with this next statement: I agree with them for the most part on that issue. But lets try to get away from politics and regional stereotypes, as it will only go downhill.
It seems like the Ohio situation may go beyond partisan politics. How does one stop mentally unbalanced individuals from using deadly weapons (in this case large carnivores) without infringing on the rights of the majority of people who are responsible (i.e., most people)?
You can't. But the basic step is to have licensing. That way at least local officials can be prepared in the event of an accident or other incidents like this.
In Australia the only potentially deadly animals that can be kept privately are some dog breeds (including dingoes in some states), venomous spiders and snakes, and saltwater crocodiles. The dog breeds are highly controversial and if keeping of elapids and saltwater crocs was more widespread, it probably would be too. Personally I fall into what in Australia we call the 'small-l liberal' category that is named to distinguish from the conservative, free marketeer Liberal Party (the name does American heads in, I'm sure). I believe in government activism to increase opportunity and a basic level of social equity and security, and otherwise want the state to leave people alone. However, I flatter Australian politics perhaps by thinking it is just a little more rational than the interest-group controlled American polity. In Australia nobody would ever dream that a private individual should be allowed to keep 50 big cats and bears without a) a recognised purpose for doing so, such as display, research or conservation and b) a rigorous regime of government inspection and licensing. It sounds like, in this case, the animals were kept for public display. I don't know if there was any educational basis to this, though I doubt it. In Australia this would probably still be fine. It's hard, for instance, to justify the argument that all wild animals in Australian zoos are kept only for purposes that go beyond commercial operations. It simply wouldn't be true. What appears to have been disgracefully lacking, however, is anything approaching the rigorous inspection and regulation that is reasonable to be expected. And this is where the wing-nut libertarian right in the US has blood on its hands. Whether its guns or tigers, these people put selfish interests ahead of public safety, and they deserve to be condemned. This zoo owner was clearly Mott a fit person to own big cats. Any rationally organised society would recognise that, but American politics is all too often irrational.
